Livelaw reported that the petitioners argue that details for Aadhaar are collected by private contractors and NGOs hired by UIDAI without any safeguard. This makes them prone to misuse. They claimed that empirical research shows that the biometric identification denoted for UID, namely the the iris scan and fingerprint identification, is faulty and is could be abused.

According to an Economic Times report, a petition has been filed by the Digital Lenders Association of India (DLAI) which comprises startups such as CapitalFloat, LendingKart, ZestMoney, IndiaLends as well as early-stage investment firms and companies which provide authentication services and background verifications. These companies are particularly appealing to ensure advantages such as eKYC offered by Aadhaar help a lot in real-time verification of customers.

Legally speaking, the petition is being termed as an 'intervention application' which has yet to be accepted by the SC. There is no clarity on when it will be heard according to legal experts who have spoken to ET.

Suhrith Parthasarathy argues in The Hindu that the government will, no doubt, argue that Aadhaar can bring about many benefits. However any policy, howsoever poorly framed, will likely bring about certain gains. The question is ultimately one of proportionality and justice. Arguing that the government's aim is to create a seamless police state, which will chill our freedom and give the State rampant power he asks whether the Supreme Court will dare to stop this.

He goes on to insist that we should "applaud the UIDAI for being responsive to the concerns of the public. We need to recognise that providing a unique, secure identification, with instant authentication anywhere, to 1.3 billion Indians is an evolving endeavour."

"Nagpur Police undertook a thorough investigation in this case and his death was due to a heart attack", Shivaji Bodkhe, Joint Commissioner of Police, Nagpur told reporters. "The postmortem, as well as the forensic reports too, confirm the same. There was nothing unusual in the report," he said.

Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Tuesday said he had filed a complaint against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra in the medical college scam case and requested five senior most apex court judges, including the four rebel judges, to hold an in-house inquiry into the matter.

Justice Loya’s son, Anuj, said he did not have any doubts about the way his father died three years ago. "I had an emotional turmoil, hence I had suspicions about his death. But now we don't have any doubts about the way he died," he told reporters at a press conference.

Advocate Gautam Bhatia, in a series of tweets, said on Friday that in the last 20 years, the office of the Chief Justice of India has received a lot of power without having any system of accountability to keep it in check.

Bhatia argued that two features in the Indian legal system — "the splitting up of the Supreme Court into multiple different benches, and the massive backlog of cases" — make these powers problematic. "In this context, the Chief Justice's powers to assign cases to benches and to decide when a case is to be heard become very significant," he said in one tweet.

"The Chief Justice's administrative power effectively transform itself into a power to significantly influence the outcomes of cases (sic)," Bhatia further said.

Sinha said "if four senior most Supreme Court judges say democracy is under threat, we have to take their words very seriously""

"Every citizen who feels for democracy should speak up. I will ask party (BJP) leaders and senior cabinet ministers to speak up. I will appeal to them to get rid of their fears and speak up," he said.

Sinha, however, insisted that it was for the apex court to sort out the crisis after the four senior judges virtually revolted against the country's chief justice on Friday, raising questions on "selective" case allocation and certain judicial orders.

An open letter by former apex court judge PB Sawant, ex-chief justice of Delhi High Court AP Shah, former Madras High Court judge K Chandru and ex-Bombay High Court judge H Suresh was given to the media. It has also gone viral on social media.

Justice Shah confirmed having written an open letter along with the other retired judges and told PTI, "We have written the open letter which the other judges named in the letter have also consented to."

He said that the view expressed by the retired judges is "quite similar to the views of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) that till this crisis is resolved, the important matters should be listed before a five-judge Constitution bench of senior judges".

According to a News18 report, Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde is brokering peace between Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on one side and four other senior-most judges – Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph – on the other.

The RP Luthra case is at the centre of the whole fiasco. To convey the "less than desirable" things taking place inside the apex court, the four justices referred to a letter that they had written to the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The letter mentions an order passed in the case RP Luthra vs Union Of India Ministry Of Law And Another respondents passed on 27 October. What does the order in the RP Luthra case say that made the four justices speak publicly against the CJI?

Based on the letter to the CJI, the four justices made public on Friday, it seems clear that the main point of contention at present is the delay in implementing the Memorandum of Procedure towards the appointment of judges in India. "...there should be no further delay in finalisation of MOP in larger public interest," the SC order in the Luthra case had said and was reiterated by the four judges as well in their letter to the CJI.

Of frequent reference is also the case of caste. It is argued that the judiciary, populated by as much as 95 percent of its constituency by individuals of the Brahmin caste, is Brahmanical. This criticism resurfaced in the defiance and subsequent punishment of Justice CS Karnan whose persecution, it is said, was about his caste.

According to The Times of India, there have been fifteen 'super sensitive' cases which have been handled by junior judges and not the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. These cases include Bofors, Rajiv Gandhi assassination, LK Advani's trial in Babri masjid demolition, Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter, Best Bakery and the case that changed how BCCI, reported the publication.

For those who have access to portals of the Supreme Court, the spectacle of four of its senior most judges raising the banner of revolt against their Chief Justice did not come as a surprise, but rather a conspiracy to alter the course of history.

“It was brewing for some time” is the general refrain if you talk to anyone conversant with what is going on. Letters were being secretly written to judges and circulating, pointing out skeletons in cupboards hidden from public view. Insinuation and innuendo over the formation of benches on certain issues of critical economic and political importance were the order of the day.

And there were all indications that there was something stinking in the corridors of the Supreme Court, to borrow a phrase from Justice Markandey Katju (he was referring to the Allahabad High Court). All this was exposed in a jiffy as the judges pointed fingers at CJI’s alleged indiscretion in allocating cases to benches and his other administrative functioning.

According to ANI, chairman of Bar Council of India Manan Kumar Mishra criticised the four Supreme Court judges for holding a press conference on Friday. "Holding a press conference on a minor issue of roster is saddening," he said.

Mishra further added that Bar Council is set to have a meeting at 5 pm on Saturday and meet the four senior judges on Sunday. "We have a meeting at 5 pm today (Saturday). Tomorrow (Sunday) our delegation will meet those senior judges, Chief Justice of India and other judges and request them to not bring issues like these in front of public," he said.

“This has led to imagination of the country running wild. The institution derives its respect for the credibility it has garnered over these years. If the credibility goes, who will respect the institution? The press conference has only led to speculation,” he added.

Speaking to ANI, former additional solicitor general of India and the Supreme Court Bar Association president Vikas Singh said, "If they had to come for a press conference, then they should have said something substantial. Just creating doubts in the minds of people will not serve the interest of the judiciary. This was not properly planned. They didn't say anything about Justice Loya."

The record of the allotment of cases to benches is called the roster. The CJI is the first amongst equals at the Supreme Court and his judgments carry no more weight than any other judge of the court. But the CJI does have more administrative powers, which includes control on the roster. This means it is up to the CJI to decide which set of judges hears which matters.

A particular judge may have domain expertise in an area of law and therefore would be suitable for a particular matter while another judge may not. These decisions are often taken by the Chief Justice while assigning matters. While there is usually a system that is followed for most regular cases, when it comes to constituting special benches or assigning matters of constitutional import, the exercise of this power becomes as important as some of the decisions of the court itself.

On Friday, Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph addressed the media to highlight their grievances about how cases are allocated in the Supreme Court. Read the full text of the letter issued by the four Supreme Court judges

Justices AK Sikri and DY Chandrachud seek to know how is the Aadhaar biometrics system different from the biometrics for US Visa?

15:27 (IST)

Ensuring Aadhaar data is not misused not enough to grant it legality, petitioners argue in case

Justice Chandrachud asked that if the government ensures that Aadhaar data is used only for the purpose it is collected, will it address the concerns raised by the petitioners. To this the petitioner's lawyer replied that the design in itself is bad as it allows State domination. Shyam Divan further argued that the problem is not that whether the State is actually tracking its citizens or not but the fact that the Aadhaar makes it possible.

15:13 (IST)

Aadhaar alters the relationship between the citizen and the State

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan today submitted in court that Aadhaar seems too alter the relationship between the citizen and the State, while diminishing the status of the citizen. All rights, a citizen could earlier freely assert have now been made part of a “compulsory barter”, averring, “The barter compels the citizen to give up his biometrics ‘voluntarily’, unless the number is seeded in databases of the service provider, the citizen is denied access to these most essential facilities. "Inalienable and natural rights are dependent on a compulsory exaction.”

'People's Constitution is being sought to be converted into a State's Constitution'

#Aadhaar case: Senior Supreme Court lawyer, Shyam Divan, appearing for petitioners, told the five-judge Constitution bench that '#Aadhaar may cause death of citizens' civil rights. A people's Constitution is being sought to be converted into a State's Constitution.'

The final arguments in Aadhaar case begin before the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court. At the start of the arguments, Attorney General sought time bound arguments. A-G reminded the Bench that Ramjanmabhoomi land title dispute case is also scheduled to be taken up from 8 February.

A total of five countries — Uruguay, New Zealand, France, Brazil, and England and Wales — legalised gay sex in 2013. Here is the full report on how the world has changed its views on homosexuality since 2013.

14:03 (IST)

What two recent SC judgments tell us about court's altered view on sexuality and privacy in India

Ajay Kumar writing for Firstpost details that two judgments, one regarding rights of transgender people and the other about the Right to Privacy show that the court's view has changed considerably on sexuality and privacy.

13:29 (IST)

Judges meeting for lunch

India Today reported that the CJI is meeting the judges for lunch. Three of the dissenting judges are present at the meeting. Justice Chelameswar is absent. Justice Bobde and Justice Goel are not present as well.

SD: In 2012, many citizens filed PILs against the Aadhaar scheme. In 2013, a two judge bench referred the matter for final hearing, and made it clear that nobody should suffer from lack of an Aadhaar card.

Petitioners: The State is empowered with a ‘switch’ by which it can cause the civil death of an individual

SD:The State is empowered with a ‘switch’ by which it can cause the civil death of an individual. Where every basic facility is linked to Aadhaar and one cannot live in society without an Aadhaar number, the switching off of Aadhaar completely destroys the individual.

Petitioners: The case at hand is unique. There are few judicial precedents to guide us

SD: The case at hand is unique. In part, this is because the programme challenged here is itself without precedent. No democratic society has adopted a programme that is similar in its command and sweep. There are few judicial precedents to guide us.

"Tuesday was a sunny day at the Supreme Court after days of clouds over its cohesiveness and probity"

"A new day seems to be in order in the Supreme Court after clouds over its cohesiveness and probity. The CJI should now show the light and redeem the institution's glory by getting all his brother and sister judges along, to end this crisis and convert it into a chance to bring about all necessary institutional reforms," writes Utkarsh Anand on News18.

11:03 (IST)

Main arguments before the court

Livelaw reported that the petitioners argue that details for Aadhaar are collected by private contractors and NGOs hired by UIDAI without any safeguard. This makes them prone to misuse. They claimed that empirical research shows that the biometric identification denoted for UID, namely the the iris scan and fingerprint identification, is faulty and is could be abused.

10:58 (IST)

Five-judge bench led by CJI Dipak Misra will start hearing the Aadhaar case at 11.30 am

A 5-judge bench,led by #CJI,will start hearing #Aadhaar case at 11.30 AM.It will be interesting to see if the #AttorneyGeneral again argues there's no urgency to decide on validity of #Aadhaar now that data protection law is being mulled & a new facial technique is being brought

The Chief Justice is largely sheltered from public view while exercising his administrative powers, according to Business Standard. The authors write, "This creates an administrative authority, free of many of the constraints imposed on other agencies. The administrative powers of the Chief Justice have grown with time. However, the Court has failed to devise a parallel mechanism to keep a check on these powers... A slew of corrective measures are now required."

10:26 (IST)

Court to take up 29 pleas against Aadhaar

The court will take up 29 pleas against Aadhaar. The final hearing on the pleas challenging Aadhaar comes five years since the first was filed.

10:15 (IST)

Group of private companies bat for use of Aadhaar for eKYC and background verification process

According to an Economic Times report, a petition has been filed by the Digital Lenders Association of India (DLAI) which comprises startups such as CapitalFloat, LendingKart, ZestMoney, IndiaLends as well as early-stage investment firms and companies which provide authentication services and background verifications. These companies are particularly appealing to ensure advantages such as eKYC offered by Aadhaar help a lot in real-time verification of customers.

Legally speaking, the petition is being termed as an 'intervention application' which has yet to be accepted by the SC. There is no clarity on when it will be heard according to legal experts who have spoken to ET.

10:12 (IST)

Number of people issued Aadhaar numbers has increased manifold since SC started hearing Aadhaar petitions

In the five years that the Supreme Court has been hearing the Aadhaar petitions, the number of people issued Aadhaar numbers have gone up from 20-25 crore in 2012 to 119 crore, reports NDTV.

09:57 (IST)

'Aadhaar: Enabling a form of supersurveillance', argues Suhrith Parthasarathy

Suhrith Parthasarathy argues in The Hindu that the government will, no doubt, argue that Aadhaar can bring about many benefits. However any policy, howsoever poorly framed, will likely bring about certain gains. The question is ultimately one of proportionality and justice. Arguing that the government's aim is to create a seamless police state, which will chill our freedom and give the State rampant power he asks whether the Supreme Court will dare to stop this.

09:47 (IST)

Policy expert Alok Prasanna Kumar weighs in on the possible change of bench in the Loya case

A recusal usually is a clear thing "not before [me]" or "a bench not having [either one of the two judges]" or some such thing. This is putting the ball back in the CJI's court over allocation of cases. A mysterious move since no one asked for it. Something's afoot.

'Aadhaar is an evolving endeavour and UIDAI responsive to public concerns', argues Nandan Nilekani

​

In an article in the Hindustan Times, Nandan Nilekani argues that the concern about the ‘linking’ of Aadhaar to various services are over-hyped and baseless.

He goes on to insist that we should "applaud the UIDAI for being responsive to the concerns of the public. We need to recognise that providing a unique, secure identification, with instant authentication anywhere, to 1.3 billion Indians is an evolving endeavour."

09:08 (IST)

Major untoward incidents that have happened with Aadhaar

Despite the number of reports over the last couple of years, UIDAI has constantly maintained that the server and the data itself, especially biometric data is safe.

However there are numerous instances where incidents have come up where Aadhaar's secureness has been questioned. These include app-based flaws, disclosures on government websites, third party leaks, sale of data etc. Click here for report on all of these incidents.

08:59 (IST)

Bench hearing Loya case might be changed

The SC order in #JudgeLoya death case is nonetheless 'mysterious'. Has Justice Arun Mishra/MM Shanatanagoudar decided to recuse? Or since no next date of hearing is given, the matter is likely to come up before a different bench in natural course after months? pic.twitter.com/6dxn5WQe7J

The Supreme Court made certain observations in the Bofors case regarding who can file a case in criminal matters, reported The Times of India. This could have an effect on the Loya case as all the PILs in the case have been filed by advocate associations or individuals who had no connection with the judge.

08:17 (IST)

RECAP: Judge Loya died due to 'heart attack', no cause for suspicion, says Nagpur Police

"Nagpur Police undertook a thorough investigation in this case and his death was due to a heart attack", Shivaji Bodkhe, Joint Commissioner of Police, Nagpur told reporters. "The postmortem, as well as the forensic reports too, confirm the same. There was nothing unusual in the report," he said.

Sreemoy Talukdar argued in Firstpost that the nature of the gambit is such that the dissenting judges must take their dissent to its logical conclusion. Any attempts at papering over the crisis or shutting the eyelids closely and hoping the dust storm will subside won't work.

The Bar Council of India chairman Manan Mishra has said that the issues raised by the four dissenting top judges of the Supreme Court have been resolved. "We did not want any political party to take advantage of the situation," said Mishra. There seems to be some headway in the Supreme Court crisis. All the judges of the top court, including the four dissenting judges, met over tea at 10.15 am on Monday.

Sources said there was a consensus that issues need to be solved institutionally.

Meanwhile, not just theAttorney-General of India KK Venugopal but sources close to Live Law too have confirmed that the four 'rebel' judges of the Supreme Court have buried their differences with Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The latest development took place after the judges met Misra in full court room this morning.

Earlier, Attorney-General said that "everything has been settled after the judges had an informal meeting on Monday morning. Speaking before Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Senior Advocate RP Luthra urged him to resolve the issue. He claimed that there is a conspiracy to destroy the judiciary.

All four judges who rebelled against Chief Justice Dipak Misra resumed their work on Monday. Meanwhile a News18 report claimed that SA Bobde was emerging as the peacekeeper between the Chief Justice of India and the four rebel judges.

The Bar Council of India is likely to hold a press conference on Monday. Meanwhile, a report in The Times of India stated that there has been a precedence of the Chief Justice of India delegating 'super sensitive' cases to junior judges.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on Sunday assured a Bar Council of India delegation that the crisis in the Supreme Court resulting from a virtual revolt against him by four colleagues will be sorted out soon, the council chief said.

Also on Sunday, the son of special CBI judge BH Loya said in Mumbai that his father died of natural causes and not in suspicious circumstances. Loya's death, while he was hearing the politically sensitive Shohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, is the subject of a PIL in the Supreme Court that was one of the triggers for the revolt against Misra.

The Indian judiciary was thrown into a turmoil on Friday when four senior Supreme Court judges — J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, MB Lokur and Kurian Joseph – convened an unprecedented press conference to complain about "selective" case allocation by Misra and passing of certain judicial order. Misra had assigned the Loya death PIL to Justice Arun Mishra, a relatively junior judge.

In their press conference, the four justices said India’s democracy is at risk unless the wrongs in the Supreme Court are set right.

Capping a weekend flurry of activity by jurists, lawyers and politicians, a delegation of the Bar Council of India, the highest body of lawyers in the nation, today met Misra at his residence for 50 minutes.

"We met CJI in a congenial atmosphere and he said everything will be sorted out soon," BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, who led the delegation, told reporters.

File image of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. PTI

He said that before meeting the CJI, the panel also discussed the crisis plaguing the apex judiciary with other judges including the three out of the four judges who have made the allegations against Misra.

Mishra said the panel met justices Chelameshwar, Lokur, and Joseph, who also gave an assurance that the crisis will be resolved.

He did not mention whether the panel had a meeting with Gogoi, who is out of town. Gogoi is next in line to succeed Misra as the chief justice.

The BCI will hold a press conference on Monday.

Earlier, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Vikas Singh met the CJI and handed over a resolution in which the association has asked for a full court discussion to defuse the present crisis.

"I met the CJI and handed over a copy of the resolution. He said that he would look into it and ensure there was congeniality in the Supreme Court at the earliest," Singh told PTI after his 15-minute meeting with the CJI.

In another major development today, Anuj Loya, the son of the deceased CBI judge, held a press conference in Mumbai to say his family was "pained" by the recent developments surrounding his father's death. He claimed NGOs and politicians should stop "harassing" his family members over the issue.

"My father died of natural causes. Our family is convinced that it was a natural death," the 21-year-old Anuj told reporters, adding that although he and his family had earlier been suspicious about his father's sudden death three years ago, they no longer harboured doubts.

"I had an emotional turmoil, hence I had suspicions about his death. But now we don't have any doubts about the way he died," Anuj said.

"Earlier, my grandfather and aunt had some doubts about his death, which they shared. But now neither of them has any doubts," he said.

The deceased judge's father and Anuj's aunt had alleged foul play in his death.

Judge Loya, who was hearing the sensitive Sohrabuddin Sheikh "fake encounter" case, had allegedly died of a cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter.

BJP chief Amit Shah was an accused in the case but has been discharged.